Agnostic.com

17 6

Should the royal family be abolished?The royal family are a bunch of outdated leeches.Costing Britain dearly in money . Royalty perpetrates gross inequality and encourages outdated customs,and hands political leverage to people that have not earned it

Toscani 4 May 19
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

17 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

1

Bunch of useless leches that are loved by their pathotic hosts

0

I think I've read that the Royal Family generate more in foreign earnings than they cost but I have no way of verifying it and anyway I prefer to look at value rather than price.
I'm not a monarchist, but isn't one person's "outdated custom" another's "tradition"?
Nor do I think that 'gross inequality' is perpetuated by a bunch of ornamental bubbleheads as much as by the larger economic forces of capitalism.
'Political leverage' ??? Hardly. The Queen is famous for her avoidance of political utterances, and even the outspoken Duke of Edinburgh is treated more as a joke than a political manipulator.
But you're right that their role is unearned, in being inherited.

1

I love the "British Royal Family," especially the younger ones coming into their own. I have more faith and trust in these young people than I do the "Talking Heads" trying to run our country. I am not British so I do not have the right to judge what they choose to do.

4

According to the pols the majority of the British people approve ,and slobber all over them and kiss their asses with glee.

Don't worry about being offensive.

2

Yet they bring in boatloads of money to the British economy.

Yes, and their clout is helpful with the humanitarian causes they support!

Yes, and their clout is helpful with the humanitarian causes they support!

2

Firstly, a pedantic point. If a judge asked an accused "are you guilty?" and then proceeded immediately to launch into his opinion of that guilt, I am sure you would be at the forefront of the ensuing outcry.
Surely your post should have been "In my opinion the Royal Family should be abolished" and then go on to give your reasons.

I do not agree. There is more corruption and public waste of funds in nations that are not monarchies than otherwise, so your statements are utterly false. Think Trump, just for starters.
If you are honest, read this world ranking of the the 15 most corrupt nations in the world. Notice any monarchies? [cheatsheet.com]
Now read this statement:-
All but three of the 10 leading countries in the annual democracy ratings produced by the Economist Intelligence Unit are monarchies. They also take up 12 of the top 20 spots among least corrupt countries in Transparency International's corruption perception index as well as four out of the leading five in a UN happy country ranking released in 2011.
Here's the URL:- [pri.org]
Don't simply repeat stuff like a parrot. Research it first. America, your homeland and a Republic, is more wasteful and has greater inequality than Britain, a Monarchy.
Perhaps I could put it to you that the USA should become a monarchy!!!

While I would agree with some of what you say, it is not an either/or situation. The choice is not between an extremely expensive and divisive system like the UK monarchy, and an utterly corrupt presidency like that of Trump. Many of the existing monarchies cost far less and are less divisive than the UK system, such as those in the Scandinavian countries and the Netherlands, and presidencies like that of France, German, and Portugal work perfectly well without massive corruption. I think many of the current monarchies will disappear altogether within a generation or two and the head of state will simply be the head of government,

@beansontoast I don't know the facts well enough to produce a good argument, and it is not a topic I feel is important enough to do the research! So feel free to have the last word.

1

It's their country, if they didn't tolerate it, it would be gone.

Yes, it is tolerated. The majority in favour of a republic is not particularly large, and only a few of them are really vocal. I do not think there will be another referendum for some time, quite possibly not in my lifetime (I'm 74). My own views on the matter are not really strongly held, either. I'd rather live to see a colony established on Mars, but that's a bit of a long shot, too.

1

I speak as an Australian. Here the Queen is still officially the Head of State. If the British want to keep the royal family: fine. but she has no business here.

She hasn't, except as a constitutional figurehead that prevents your political leaders aspiring to absolute, hereditary control.

@Petter Where is your evidence that they would?

@CeliaVL The lack of absolute, hereditary control.

@beansontoast Not forced on us by the UK, but by the difficulty of changing the constitution. And last time the conservative government sabotaged the referendum. I don't think there will be another for a while: probably not while the Queen is alive.

@beansontoast, @Petter Yes, that is a good point. It is my main worry about becoming a republic.

@beansontoast, @Petter, @CeliaVL It's just what they do, I guess. Peter Dutton would love to be dictator. He almost is already.

@Petter That is the same argument used by religious believers who claim that you need religion because without it we would all behave like savages.

0

Just been looking at the UK Republic website, it contains some very interesting facts about our UK monarchy, I would ask those in favour of our Royal family to browse through the sections and see if they still have the same views on the subject.

0

I am not British.... Don't think I can move the ball forward here. Wait !!! .. Meghan is American and she is just getting started.... Can you delay this controversial question for some 50 years? Please? (On a serious note, I understand the severity of the question, if you happen to be British which in that case, I would only hope that you will get real feedback from the UK members of this forum)

1

Fascinating question but I also wonder why you feel so strongly about this, being American. A few things I've read about the British Royal family that I thought were interesting: 1. their history is integral to British history 2. this family seems to be made up of fairly conscientious bunch who've worked/are still working to bring the costs down for the taxpayer and to contribute genuinely to environmental causes 3. the royal wedding brought in a ton of revenue for business. The Royal family is not a total drain for Britain.

That depends which figures you read. The Royal Family is incredibly wealthy but pays no taxes. The aristocracy own large parts of the countryside and prevents its proper protection and development, and huge stretches of London, while keeping their tax bases offshore. The monarchy and aristocracy are parasites, as is the house of Lords.

@CeliaVL I'm American, feel free to educate me. We have parasites too: religious institutions and other large corporations claiming to be not-for-profit.

@CeliaVL I'm no monarchist but I do have a penchant for facts. The Royal family do indeed pay tax and their returns are subject to public scrutiny (unlike the US president's). Criticising aristos for not protecting and developing their estates sounds like "damned if they do, damned if they don't" since both those things could be seen as incompatible. As for being parasites, some are some aren't - would you call Doreen Lawrence a parasite, for instance?

@Gareth During the period while the royal family's income from our taxes has been doubled, 110,000 disabled people have had their support taken away, 15,000 NHS hospital beds have been closed, and 38 Sure Start Centres have been closed. I know which I think are the more worthy recipients of tax-payers' money.

@CeliaVL Four weeks of our war in Afghanistan or a Royal Family? I know where I would rather my taxes went. False comparisons are easy to make.
That said, I think the Royals are over-rewarded and would like to see some economies and a pruning of the civil list. However, having a president such as the US, France and Italy do, is generally more expensive (don't forget that all the ex-presidents incur generous pensions and lifetime security costs) so the choice is not as simple as you seem to suggest between the Royals and social largesse.

1

It's an interesting question. Is it outdated, possibly. Does it perpetuate a class structure, yes although I resist this at all costs. Does it use up pots of money, yes but they do pay taxes. Do people love the Royals, yes, thousands of them. Do some want them abolished, yes, thousands of them. Is it something visitors from abroad expect and enjoy seeing, yes. Am I a fan, no not particularly.

The Monarchy has been around for centuries and that doesn't make it outdated necessarily by itself, the structures within would do that, but the whole Royal thing is a brand. The Royal brand makes billions of pounds in a variety of ways for people, companies etc etc, abolishing it would not be straight forward I don't suppose but ultimately it would be through an Act of Parliament, that alone would suggest it's unlikely as someone would have the legacy of abolishing the Monarchy. And would the pros outweigh the cons, I'm not sure but then again i haven't honestly devoted a bunch of mental energy to this situation.

And unlike some I welcome comments from people from abroad, they may have an insight those in it don't have. And I don't agree that it's something just for people in the UK, whatever the rights and wrongs of how it came about it affects millions and millions of people around the Commonwealth.

I'm going to start waffling, if I haven't already, so have a nice Sunday 🙂

2

You're in freaking New York. Is their existence affecting you personally???
Can we just for a minute appreciate people with history who aren't abject dirtbags like our own "president"?

Your point would be better taken if you took on REAL LEECHES! Corporate America that lives essentially TAX FREE and outsources for slave wages and wants to import that crap here!

5

I think we need to take a look at our own fucked up government before we throw stones.

^^^ Thank you!!! ^^^

1

Oust em'!

1

Amen.

3

Seems to me that's a question for the British people. I was interested to learn that the royals paid for the wedding today. All they wanted from ''the people'' was the massive security effort surrounding the event.

That massive security effort had an expensive price tag

@pixiedust Security for ANY public figure is expensive! Wonder how much we pay every time the treasonous groper goes to Mar A Lago to play golf? Thousands of innocent people were lining the route to that wedding site and security needed to be in place because we all know how bombers lust after blood! What would you suggest the Brits should've done? NOT had a wedding? The public loves Harry and wanted to see him with his bride and the security protected the route, etc.

@LucyLoohoo I was just pointing out the $$ contribution from the public and suggested nothing else. Please do not put words into my mouth, especially in capital letters.

The people who attended, watched or performed at the event seemed to be enjoying themselves and will likely have pleasant memories to contemplate for some time to come.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:85720
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.